Himachal Pradesh High Court
Himachal Road Transport Corporation vs Bhupinder Singh And Another on 22 April, 2017
Bench: Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Tarlok Singh Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
.
CWP No.3330 of 2016 a/w CWPs No.21, 322 and 324 of 2017.
Judgment reserved on: 11.04.2017.
Date of decision: 22 April, 2017.
1. CWP No.3330 of 2016.
Himachal Road Transport Corporation .....Petitioners.
and another r Versus
Bhupinder Singh and another .....Respondents.
For the Petitioners : Mr.Shrawan Dogra, Senior
Advocate with Mr.Sunil Mohan
Goel, Advocate, for petitioner
No.1.
Mr.Shrawan Dogra, Advocate
General with Mr.Anup Rattan,
Mr.Romesh Verma, Additional
Advocate Generals and
Mr.J.K.Verma, Deputy Advocate
General, for petitioner No.2.
For the Respondents : Mr.B.C.Negi, Senior Advocate with
Mr.Balwant Singh Thakur,
Advocate.
2. CWP No.21 of 2017.
Himachal Road Transport Corporation .....Petitioners.
and another
Versus
Chiranji Lal and others .....Respondents.
For the Petitioners : Mr.Shrawan Dogra, Senior
Advocate with Mr.Sunil Mohan
Goel, Advocate.
::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2017 23:58:06 :::HCHP
2
For the Respondents: Mr.Janesh Mahajan, Advocate, for
respondents No.1 to 5, 7 to 9, 12 to
18, 20, 22 to 26 and 28 to 31.
.
Mr.R.L.Chaudhary, Advocate, for
respondent No.19.
Nemo for other respondents.
3. CWP No.322 of 2017.
Himachal Road Transport Corporation
and another r to Versus
.....Petitioners.
Balinder Singh .....Respondent.
For the Petitioners : Mr.Shrawan Dogra, Senior
Advocate with Mr.Sunil Mohan
Goel, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Ms.Komal Chaudhary, Advocate.
4. CWP No.324 of 2017.
Himachal Road Transport Corporation .....Petitioners.
and another
Versus
Rakesh Kumar and others .....Respondents.
For the Petitioners : Mr.Shrawan Dogra, Senior
Advocate with Mr.Sunil Mohan
Goel, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr.Rakesh Kumar Dogra,
Advocate.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1Yes Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2017 23:58:06 :::HCHP 3Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
.
Since common question of law and facts arise for consideration, therefore, all these petitions were taken up together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.
2. The respondents are the original applicants, who approached the Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal (for short "Tribunal") claiming themselves to be aggrieved by the process initiated by the respondents (petitioners herein) for filling up 500 temporary posts of 'Transport Multipurpose Assistants' which posts according to them were that of 'Conductors' and they having been imparted training under the Skilled Development Scheme under the aegis of the State Government, therefore, had a preferential right of appointment.
3. The main ground of challenge before the learned Tribunal was that firstly notification dated 30.08.2014 and thereafter the rules issued thereunder were in contravention of Section 45 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 (for short "Act") inasmuch as the same have been framed without previous sanction of the State Government and secondly that the rules also contravened the Himachal Road Transport Corporation Class-I, II, III and IV Services (Recruitment, Promotion and Certain Conditions of Service Regulations), 1996 vis-à-vis the posts of conductors and lastly the respondents claimed a preferential right of appointment on the basis of their having undergone the course of 'Passenger Service Delivery Skill Development Training' and ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2017 23:58:06 :::HCHP 4 on the strength of their having already performed duties as conductors.
.
4. The petitioners, who were respondents, before the learned Tribunal filed their reply wherein in the preliminary objections/submissions, it had been averred that the Board of Directors in its meeting dated 07.11.2015 had decided to recruit 500 Transport Multipurpose Assistants and 300 drivers and these posts were to be filled up in accordance with the notification issued by it on 30.08.2014 in exercise of powers conferred under Section 45 of the Act. The posts were to be filled up in accordance with the rules known as 'Himachal Road Transport Corporation (Appointment and Condition of Service of Transport Multipurpose Assistant) Rules, 2014'. It was further averred that the respondents had no locus standi to file and maintain the original applications that too after some of them had unsuccessfully participated in the selection process. It was also averred that the original applications were otherwise not maintainable as some of the original applicants had only sought quashing of the notification dated 30.05.2016 without challenging the notification dated 30.08.2014 and rules of recruitment and, therefore, the petitions ought to have been dismissed. Lastly, the petitioners raised an additional plea and questioned the locus standi of the respondents in the original applications on the ground that some of them were total strangers to the selection process as they had not participated in the said process and, therefore, the original ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2017 23:58:06 :::HCHP 5 applications which were infact in the nature of public interest litigation were not maintainable at their instance before the learned .
Tribunal.
5. The learned Tribunal allowed all the original applications by concluding that the impugned notification dated 30.08.2014 and the rules framed thereunder lacked previous sanction of the State Government as was mandatorily required under Section 45 of the Act and, therefore, could not be sustained especially in light of the judgment of this Bench in CWP No.9492 of 2014 titled Shashi Bhushan versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 02.09.2015.
6. The petitioners have assailed the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal on the ground that before proceeding to determine the original applications on merits, it was incumbent upon the learned Tribunal to have atleast considered the preliminary objections raised by it, more particularly, when the same went to the root of the case inasmuch as it questioned the very locus standi of the respondents to file the original applications. In addition to that the judgment has also been assailed on merits on number of grounds taken in the memo of petitions. Whereas, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the issue in question as raised in these petitions is no longer res integra in view of the decision rendered by this Bench in Shashi Bhushan's case (supra).
::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2017 23:58:06 :::HCHP 6We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case.
.
7. It is not in dispute that the petitioners in addition to contesting the original applications on merits had raised certain preliminary objections/submissions which were fundamental in character and went to the root of the case. The petitioners had questioned the very locus standi of the respondents to file and maintain the original applications at the instance of those applicants, who had participated in the selection process, but had failed to make a grade, on the grounds like acquiescence, waiver etc. In addition thereto in cases where the respondents had not even participated in the selection process, the petitioners had specifically questioned their locus standi on the ground that the original applications filed by them were in the nature of public interest litigation in service matters which as per settled law were not maintainable.
8. Adverting to the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal, one would notice that though the preliminary objections raised by the petitioners have been quoted in para-6 thereof, but strangely enough, there is no discussion whatsoever on any one of these preliminary objections. Notably, it is not the case of the respondents herein that the petitioners had not pressed these objections or had given up the same. If that be so, then obviously, it was incumbent upon the learned Tribunal to have first considered these preliminary objections and only after coming to a ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2017 23:58:06 :::HCHP 7 firm conclusion that the original applications at the instance of the respondents were maintainable could it have proceeded to .
determine these applications on merits.
9. Therefore, in the given circumstances, the relative merits of the case need not be gone into as the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Tribunal for decision afresh. Since, the matter is with regard to recruitment, it is expected that the learned Tribunal shall proceed to dispose of the original applications as expeditiously as possible and preferably by 31st May, 2017.
10. However, before parting, it is once again made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, lest it causes prejudice to any of the parties.
11. Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. All pending applications stand disposed of. The Registry is directed to place a copy of this judgment on the files of connected matters.
(Mansoor Ahmad Mir), Chief Justice.
( Tarlok Singh Chauhan), 22 April, 2017. Judge.
(krt) ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2017 23:58:06 :::HCHP